50 f/1.4 IS would be the thing that (again) separates Canon from the rest. At least I hope the rumored 50 f/1.8 IS is more than decently sharp wide open.

85L IS or 135L IS, yes those would be automatic buys

I highly doubt they are talking about the 85L with this rumor. I think they are referring the venerable 85 F/1.8, which is almost a budget version of the 135L -- sharp, cheap, and reliable. But it's old and would benefit from all the bells and whistles the other non-L primes have gotten in recent refreshes.

*sigh* Ok, new lenses, probably better optical IQ than their previous, with IS (yay?), more expensive and a lot slower. Yes, I said it, f/2.8 is slow. For a good quality prime that is. For a zoom, yea, that's pretty fast. But for the 85mm going from f/1.8 to f/2.8? Ugh.

The rumour states f/2 not f/2.8: granted that's 1/3rd stop slower, but not as bad as you're suggesting. I'd take 1/3rd stop slower maximum aperture if it meant higher resolution at f/2 and lower longitudinal CAs than the current 85mm f/1.8.

...and hopefully, Canon will learn from its overpricing of the 24/28/35 IS lenses and just come to market with the right price. I previously said I would gladly pay $799 for all of the above in a 50mm lens. But the market performance of the 24/28/35 puts these lenses in the $500-600 range.

The 135L is a special lens that I don't think will be lumped in with a 50/85 refresh (keep in mind that there also is a 100m F/2 USM that no one talks about, also in need of a refresh). I see the 135L being a very serious piece of kit that will get its own fanfare when it is released.

*sigh* Ok, new lenses, probably better optical IQ than their previous, with IS (yay?), more expensive and a lot slower. Yes, I said it, f/2.8 is slow. For a good quality prime that is. For a zoom, yea, that's pretty fast. But for the 85mm going from f/1.8 to f/2.8? Ugh.

The rumour states f/2 not f/2.8: granted that's 1/3rd stop slower, but not as bad as you're suggesting. I'd take 1/3rd stop slower maximum aperture if it meant higher resolution at f/2 and lower longitudinal CAs than the current 85mm f/1.8.

An updated budget 85 would definitely be interesting. I would rather see a 85 f/1.8 or f/1.4 than one with IS added, simply because I would use it more or less exclusively for daylight/well lit portraits.

Right now, my kit is missing a good lens for portraits, 24-70II gives me good results, but f/2.8 does not really provide the shallow DOF I would like on some occasions.

The 85 update is not truly needed unless you are a completist and believe 'the whole line needs to be refreshed', all the lenses need to look the same in a brochure, etc. (i.e. you are in Canon's marketing group or you are a lens collector.) The current 85mm F/1.8 is quite possibly the greatest bang for buck lens that Canon currently sells. It's a stellar lens for the dollar, even 15-20 years after its release: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1

I owned an 85/1.8 for several years, and although I liked it very much, I ultimately replaced it with the 100/2.8L IS macro. I used the 85/1.8 primarily for in-studio portraits, where I only used it wider than f/2.8 experimentally. I liked the quality of images from the 100 IS macro better.

Whether or not the 85/1.8 needs an update is for us mere photographers a fairly subjective question. (For Canon, of course, it's a business revenue / profit issue.) FWIW, my minor irritation with the 85/1.8 was its slight CA in some instances, and my major gripe was its clip-on hood, which I found cumbersome to attach correctly; when I didn't get it on right, it would pop off easily.

If I were Canon updating the 85/1.8, I would bring its optics up to current non-L prime standards, add IS (dropping max aperture to f/2.0 would be a small price) and give it a bayonet hood.

I'm looking forward to the release of an updated Canon non-L 50mm with true ring USM, with or without IS.

If the "Year of the Lens" turns out to be just slapping IS on some existing lenses, I will be highly disappointed.

Um, have you seen the 35mm IS versus the old 35mm f/2?: TDP LinkOr versus even the 35mm f/1.4L (at f/2): TDP Link

You can't tell me that lens is not impressive considering its size and price. I know its not nearly as impressive as the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, but it's also much smaller and costs half as much. On paper it is the most hand-holdable lens ever made (using the 1/FL rule of thumb, a sharp picture could be had at 1/2 to 1/2.5 sec).

The 24mm IS and 28mm IS are just as good, and I, for one, welcome our new higher-quality non-L lenses. I think I'll probably pick up the 50mm when it is released. I wasn't happy with the 50mm 1.8II or 50mm 1.8 I, and I think the focusing definitely needs improvement on the 50mm 1.4 (especially when used with a focusing system like the 5D Mark I).

FWIW, my minor irritation with the 85/1.8 was its slight CA in some instances, and my major gripe was its clip-on hood, which I found cumbersome to attach correctly; when I didn't get it on right, it would pop off easily.

If I were Canon updating the 85/1.8, I would bring its optics up to current non-L prime standards, add IS (dropping max aperture to f/2.0 would be a small price) and give it a bayonet hood.

I forgot about the hoods. Great comment!

I have the 50 F/1.4 and the hood attachment is terrible -- you can cross thread it, you can miss the ring and have it slide up the lens barrel, reversing it is a pain, it is poorly secured -- you name it.

If the 24/28/35 IS refreshes are any indication, the new hood for the 50 / 85 will be stellar. I have the 28 IS hood and it's as solid as any L hood I own (save for the war-worthy 70-200 F/2.8 IS II). It's secure, fast, and well built. In fact, on the 28mm length, I just leave it on the lens full-time because I don't have to fiddle with a CPL. (I hate wide angle CPL 'pseudo-vignetting' you get from such a wide variation in polarization, so under 35mm length I don't use CPLs.)

If the "Year of the Lens" turns out to be just slapping IS on some existing lenses, I will be highly disappointed.

Um, have you seen the 35mm IS versus the old 35mm f/2?: TDP LinkOr versus even the 35mm f/1.4L (at f/2): TDP Link

You can't tell me that lens is not impressive considering its size and price. I know its not nearly as impressive as the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, but it's also much smaller and costs half as much. On paper it is the most hand-holdable lens ever made (using the 1/FL rule of thumb, a sharp picture could be had at 1/2 to 1/2.5 sec).

The 24mm IS and 28mm IS are just as good, and I, for one, welcome our new higher-quality non-L lenses. I think I'll probably pick up the 50mm when it is released. I wasn't happy with the 50mm 1.8II or 50mm 1.8 I, and I think the focusing definitely needs improvement on the 50mm 1.4 (especially when used with a focusing system like the 5D Mark I).

+100.

I've been tooting the horn of these non-L refreshes for some time. In all three cases, the non-L offers as good AF as the L, as good IQ as the L + IS + lighter + cheaper. You only lose a little speed and weather-sealing (in the case of the 24mm F/1.4L).

I'm not calling them L lenses, but calling them the 'cheaper lens option' is entirely missing the point. These lenses are stellar. Since I rarely want or need to shoot at F/1.4, I see no need to pony up for the Ls in these lengths.

The two you can bank on are a 50mm f/1.8 IS and an 85mm f/2 IS (the source wasn’t totally sure on the aperture, but did say it would be slower than the current f/1..

I would love to see a 85 mm with better optical performance even without IS.But it would be hard for me to have an aperture much slower than f/1.8.f/2 maybe... but if it was f/2.8 I have zero interest.

A 50mm f/1.8 IS might be interesting if it really outperforms the current f/1.4 in built and optical quality.(for a decent price)

*sigh* Ok, new lenses, probably better optical IQ than their previous, with IS (yay?), more expensive and a lot slower. Yes, I said it, f/2.8 is slow. For a good quality prime that is. For a zoom, yea, that's pretty fast. But for the 85mm going from f/1.8 to f/2.8? Ugh.

The rumour states f/2 not f/2.8: granted that's 1/3rd stop slower, but not as bad as you're suggesting. I'd take 1/3rd stop slower maximum aperture if it meant higher resolution at f/2 and lower longitudinal CAs than the current 85mm f/1.8.

Oh. Reading fail. f/2 isn't too bad, as long as they tweak the optics to improve it some for wide-open. And keep the price reasonably affordable. And by that, I mean $600-700. Much more and it's starting to get into some L-sale/refurb prices. Granted, maybe not on the 85L, but still.